Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
NOTE: use Perl; is on undef hiatus. You can read content, but you can't post it. More info will be forthcoming forthcomingly.

All the Perl that's Practical to Extract and Report

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More | Login | Reply
Loading... please wait.
  • I know some people who supported the war. They have become very quiet on that subject now.
    --


    neophyte Niederrhein.pm [pm.org]
    • I supported it, and I am not quiet about it, but I maintained for months leading up to the war that whether or not Hussein had weapons was not the point. And Blix's quote shows he still doesn't get that. The impatience the American government had was not for finding weapons or not, it was for Iraqi cooperation, which was never the full (let alone immediate) cooperation required by UN resolutions.
      I don't know if there are weapons in Iraq, or were, and I only care for reasons OTHER than whether war was actu
      • For the record, I absolutely do not buy your argument, but at least it's a darned sight more intellectually honest than most pro-war arguments that I hear.

        • Heh. Well, I don't see what's to buy. Resolution 1441 listed as a material breach only one thing: not cooperating (and we know, indisputably, that Iraq did not fully cooperate, as it flatly refused to allow inspectors to interview their people under UN terms, as required by 1441).

          Resolution 687 (from 1991, the cease-fire agreement) said that it was Iraq's responsibility to prove that it had no weapons. It can only do that by fully cooperating, because any lack of cooperating means they could be hiding s